This thread was making some progress before the petty bickering took over. Hopefully we can return to that. I usually don't get into these AA debates because people approach with closed ears but I saw a few legitimately open minded questions and propositions advanced here that I wanted to weigh in on.

First of all, as an aside, "The smart minorities get it..." is just a tad bit insulting, and factually incorrect to boot. Support for the proposition underlying this disrespectful statement could more easily be garnered by simply rewording the title of this thread to reflect that some minorities agree with Class Based AA as opposed to Race Based AA - but to say that only the smart minorities are in agreement with class based AA is ridiculous. I would urge blondngreen to rename the title of this thread if he/she is serious about encouraging an intellectual discourse about the topic. A simple "Class Based AA" would suffice. But moving on...

It's an assertion, or a statement of opinion. Kind of like "AA is necessary." We can debate the truth of both statements, but I personally agree with the idea (though I would change "smart" to "thoughtful.")

I agree with the legitimacy of the class based AA. Rich kids (white or black) certainly don't need any more help getting into professional schools, and many legacies who fall into the upper middle to upper class will get admitted into schools that they didn't necessarily deserve with the assistance of their own form of affirmative action: by virtue of their legacy status. (although nobody seems to be pissed off about this for some strange reason) But at the end of the day, if you were to take a pool of America and ask everybody do you think school admissions should be based on race or based on income, most people (both black and white) will say based on income.

Excellent post, although signficant legacy preference in law school appears extremely rare. To the rare extent this occurs, I think it's considered less offensive because it's not a form of racial discrimination.

Somebody asked a good question: what argument remains for the race based AA once we accept the legitimacy of class based AA? Unfortunately there is one glaring argument that remains even for those of us who agree and support Class Based AA, which ties into what Opera Attorney pointed out - blacks, latinos, and other minorities are still, in 2007, discriminated against in employment and the professional setting

How so? We need more concrete evidence of this, especially since the evidence appears to indicate that minorities are actually favored in hiring these days.

and what's worse is that, despite 40 years worth of AA, minorities still exist only in very very very small numbers in the legal profession. White males still continue to dominate the working worlds of biglaw and big-business long after we have all left the 3 or 4 year academic setting of law school, med school, etc.

Now, this is indisputably true. However, a differential in results doesn't necessarily mean the cause is discrimination. For example, jews and asians have historically faced discrimination, but they are OVERrepresented in various professional fields. Blacks are also overrepresented in sports and music -- again not necessarily the result of discrimination.

In other words, when attempting to remedy past wrongs and level the playing fields with an AA program, too many of us who support class based AA focus on getting into school and stop there - as if that's the entire purpose of class based AA. The issue being addressed by Class Based AA doesn't end by merely getting into law school, folks.

The problem, to me, is that this "issue" appears primarily cultural, not societal. Jews predominate in law because of their cultural background and aspirations. Hispanics are underrepresented because of a different cultural background. The idea that we should favor certain cultures simply because they prepare their members less well seems questionable -- especially since this doesn't really motivate the culture to adapt and change.

Even though I agree with the legitimacy of Class Based AA, I am less certain that we, as a nation, are in a position even in 2007 where we can completely swap out one for the other. I would certainly like for us to be, but the fact of the matter is that we are not. I am hopeful that we can be there someday. Former Justice O'Connor estimated that day at being 25 years in the future. Who knows. But one thing is for certain, we're not there yet. Replacing Race Based with Class Based now is premature. Even Obama (one of the alleged "smart minorities" according to the blondngreen) is very clear on this topic when asked about the state of race in America - he says that he believes that America is ready to get past it's race problem, which is to say that it still has a problem that it needs to get past.

Obama is certainly entitled to his opinion. However, the real question, again, is why certain minorities struggle once educational opportunity it controlled for. To me, again, the primary problem is cultural, and people like Obama himself are clear examples of the fact that there is no nebulous, impervious force preventing minorities from achieving academically -- it ultimately comes down to the individual, and, perhaps, his family outlook. It is therefore unclear to me that creating different standards for minorities is the answer to this question.

I stopped reading at the bolded.

I know the feeling. Let's hope Lindbergh devotes more energy to his law classes. LOL .

Logged

"I don't believe in the word 'impossible,' because the One in whom I believe can do the impossible." - Me

This thread was making some progress before the petty bickering took over. Hopefully we can return to that. I usually don't get into these AA debates because people approach with closed ears but I saw a few legitimately open minded questions and propositions advanced here that I wanted to weigh in on.

First of all, as an aside, "The smart minorities get it..." is just a tad bit insulting, and factually incorrect to boot. Support for the proposition underlying this disrespectful statement could more easily be garnered by simply rewording the title of this thread to reflect that some minorities agree with Class Based AA as opposed to Race Based AA - but to say that only the smart minorities are in agreement with class based AA is ridiculous. I would urge blondngreen to rename the title of this thread if he/she is serious about encouraging an intellectual discourse about the topic. A simple "Class Based AA" would suffice. But moving on...

I agree with the legitimacy of the class based AA. Rich kids (white or black) certainly don't need any more help getting into professional schools, and many legacies who fall into the upper middle to upper class will get admitted into schools that they didn't necessarily deserve with the assistance of their own form of affirmative action: by virtue of their legacy status. (although nobody seems to be pissed off about this for some strange reason) But at the end of the day, if you were to take a pool of America and ask everybody do you think school admissions should be based on race or based on income, most people (both black and white) will say based on income.

Somebody asked a good question: what argument remains for the race based AA once we accept the legitimacy of class based AA? Unfortunately there is one glaring argument that remains even for those of us who agree and support Class Based AA, which ties into what Opera Attorney pointed out - blacks, latinos, and other minorities are still, in 2007, discriminated against in employment and the professional setting and what's worse is that, despite 40 years worth of AA, minorities still exist only in very very very small numbers in the legal profession. White males still continue to dominate the working worlds of biglaw and big-business long after we have all left the 3 or 4 year academic setting of law school, med school, etc. In other words, when attempting to remedy past wrongs and level the playing fields with an AA program, too many of us who support class based AA focus on getting into school and stop there - as if that's the entire purpose of class based AA. The issue being addressed by Class Based AA doesn't end by merely getting into law school, folks.

Even though I agree with the legitimacy of Class Based AA, I am less certain that we, as a nation, are in a position even in 2007 where we can completely swap out one for the other. I would certainly like for us to be, but the fact of the matter is that we are not. I am hopeful that we can be there someday. Former Justice O'Connor estimated that day at being 25 years in the future. Who knows. But one thing is for certain, we're not there yet. Replacing Race Based with Class Based now is premature. Even Obama (one of the alleged "smart minorities" according to the blondngreen) is very clear on this topic when asked about the state of race in America - he says that he believes that America is ready to get past it's race problem, which is to say that it still has a problem that it needs to get past.

Uh, huh. You sure schooled me. Here I was thinking that this country was racism free. I guess Obama's kids should benefit from AA then 'cause of all the racism and such.

Uh, huh. You sure schooled me. Here I was thinking that this country was racism free. I guess Obama's kids should benefit from AA then 'cause of all the racism and such.

If you say so. I certainly was not advocating that rich kids (white or black) get any preferential treatment in school admissions, but you somehow missed that part of my post when I said: "I agree with the legitimacy of the class based AA. Rich kids (white or black) certainly don't need any more help getting into professional schools."

So after reading this, naturally, your response is that Obama's kids should get the opposite of what was patently posted in plain English above?? Classic. You appear to have allowed your feelings on race to color your analytical skills. Pre-laws are supposed to be better than that.

Which ties into my first statement of why I tend not to get involved in these type of debates - too many posters like the above with closed minds and narrow vision when it comes to this topic.

Galt - LOL

Dashrashi - ouch! Why such harsh words?

Lindbergh - I agree with most of your rebuttal, but in the interest of time and space, I'll just say we only disagree on a few things regarding the current conditions of race relations in the legal profession today.

Logged

"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."Charles H. Houston

Even though I agree with the legitimacy of Class Based AA, I am less certain that we, as a nation, are in a position even in 2007 where we can completely swap out one for the other. I would certainly like for us to be, but the fact of the matter is that we are not. I am hopeful that we can be there someday. Former Justice O'Connor estimated that day at being 25 years in the future. Who knows. But one thing is for certain, we're not there yet. Replacing Race Based with Class Based now is premature. Even Obama (one of the alleged "smart minorities" according to the blondngreen) is very clear on this topic when asked about the state of race in America - he says that he believes that America is ready to get past it's race problem, which is to say that it still has a problem that it needs to get past.

You don't advocate rich black kids getting affirmative action, but you don't want to replace race based AA with class based AA...Uh, huh

Edit: I skimmed 'em, and nothing female-identified popped out. A lot of anger though. You see a therapist lately?

I couldn't help but notice that as well.

Not to mention several repeated misapplications of Constitutional Law with respect to AA. It is entertaining to see people like this get "schooled" (to borrow that phrase) in law school when they actually bring those type of arguments to your average law school professor.

Logged

"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."Charles H. Houston